AMD EPYC 9655P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX and the AMD EPYC 9655P are both 96-core, 192-thread Zen 5 processors built on TSMC’s 4 nm node, yet they target different corners of the professional market. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX, a workstation part with an unlocked multiplier and a launch MSRP of $11700, edges out the EPYC 9655P, a server processor with a launch MSRP of $10811, in overall average benchmark score: 406,395 versus 396,673, a 2.5% advantage. However, the EPYC 9655P counters with a higher base clock, a wider memory bus, and wins in several specialized workloads, making the choice between them dependent on the specific application. The data below breaks down exactly where each chip excels and where the other takes over.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly along workload lines. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX dominates the Cinebench suite, winning every multi-core and single-core test by a consistent 9% margin. This includes a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 148,601 versus 136,354, and a single-core score of 20,979 versus 19,250. The Threadripper also wins in PassMark’s multithread test (174,825 versus 160,417, a 9% lead), data compression (3,627,619 versus 3,478,283, a 4.3% lead), extended instructions (247,436 versus 227,538, an 8.7% lead), and integer math (1,220,090 versus 1,219,189, a razor-thin 0.1% lead). Its single-thread performance is the standout: 4,565 versus 3,848, an 18.6% advantage that carries over to every single-core Cinebench result.

The EPYC 9655P, in contrast, wins where the workload scales with memory bandwidth or favors its architecture’s quirks. It takes PassMark physics by a massive 25.4% margin (26,810 versus 20,011), and also wins in floating-point math (710,260 versus 707,600, a 0.4% edge), random string sorting (455,310 versus 426,857, a 6.2% lead), find prime numbers (1,683 versus 1,573, a 6.5% lead), and data encryption (219,606 versus 215,680, a 1.8% lead). These wins are fewer in number—5 versus 12—but they represent distinct categories where the server chip is the clear choice. The Threadripper’s wins are more frequent and often larger, but the EPYC’s victories are concentrated in specific compute patterns.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 5 architecture, 4 nm process node from TSMC, and identical transistor counts of 99,780 million across 12 dies of 70.6 mm² each. The cores and threads match at 96 and 192, and both offer 384 MB of shared L3 cache, 1 MB of L2 per core, and Gen 5 PCIe with 128 CPU-only lanes. The differences begin with the core-level cache: the Threadripper PRO 9995WX has 64 KB of L1 per core, while the EPYC 9655P has 80 KB per core. The base clocks diverge slightly, with the EPYC at 2.60 GHz versus the Threadripper’s 2.50 GHz, but the boost clocks reverse the order: the Threadripper reaches 5.40 GHz versus the EPYC’s 4.50 GHz. That 900 MHz boost advantage explains the Threadripper’s single-core dominance.

The socket and platform are entirely different. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The EPYC’s server orientation shows in its memory subsystem: twelve-channel DDR5 support with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the Threadripper’s eight-channel setup at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The codenames also differ—Shimada Peak for the Threadripper, Turin for the EPYC—and the Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, a feature absent from the EPYC. The Threadripper launched on 2025-07-22, while the EPYC launched nearly a year earlier on 2024-10-09. The EPYC carries a higher TDP at 400 W versus 350 W, and the Threadripper’s part number is 100-000001361 while the EPYC’s is 100-000001522.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the better processor for single-threaded and mixed workloads, while the EPYC 9655P is preferable for memory-bandwidth-hungry or physics-heavy tasks. With an average benchmark score 2.5% higher than the EPYC, the Threadripper is the more balanced performer. Its 18.6% lead in PassMark single-thread performance and 9% lead across all Cinebench tests make it the stronger choice for applications that prioritize per-core speed, such as rendering, coding, and general workstation tasks. The unlocked multiplier also gives it flexibility for those who can exploit it.

However, the EPYC 9655P is not merely a weaker sibling. Its 25.4% win in PassMark physics and 6.5% win in find prime numbers indicate it handles specific algorithmic patterns better, likely due to its higher base clock of 2.60 GHz and larger L1 cache of 80 KB per core. Its twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s versus the Threadripper’s 409.6 GB/s, is a decisive advantage in any workload that saturates memory bandwidth. For a server environment where memory throughput is paramount, the EPYC is the rational pick. The Threadripper wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but the EPYC’s 5 wins are in categories where the margin can be substantial, such as physics. Choose the Threadripper for general-purpose performance and single-core speed; choose the EPYC for memory-bound or physics-heavy server workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9655P boosts to 4.50 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper in single-threaded performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 4,565 in PassMark single-thread versus 3,848 for the EPYC 9655P, a lead of 18.6%.

Q: Which chip has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9655P has a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s, compared to the Threadripper’s eight-channel 409.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The EPYC 9655P wins PassMark physics by 25.4%, scoring 26,810 versus the Threadripper’s 20,011.

Q: Do both processors have the same L3 cache?

A: Yes, both the Threadripper PRO 9995WX and the EPYC 9655P have 384 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 per core.

Q: Which processor is unlocked for overclocking?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD EPYC 9655P does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive Threadripper victory is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4,565 against the EPYC’s 3,848, an 18.6% margin. This result is echoed across the Cinebench suite, where the Threadripper wins R15 single-core (2,114 versus 1,940), R20 single-core (8,811 versus 8,085), and R23 single-core (20,979 versus 19,250), each by exactly 9%. In multi-core, the Threadripper maintains that 9% edge across all three Cinebench versions: R15 at 14,978 versus 13,744, R20 at 62,412 versus 57,268, and R23 at 148,601 versus 136,354. PassMark multithread follows the same pattern, with the Threadripper at 174,825 versus 160,417, again a 9% lead. Extended instructions favor the Threadripper by 8.7% (247,436 versus 227,538), and data compression by 4.3% (3,627,619 versus 3,478,283). Integer math is nearly a tie, with the Threadripper at 1,220,090 versus 1,219,189, a 0.1% margin.

The EPYC 9655P’s largest win is PassMark physics, where its 26,810 score crushes the Threadripper’s 20,011 by 25.4%. Random string sorting goes to the EPYC at 455,310 versus 426,857, a 6.2% lead, and find prime numbers sees the EPYC at 1,683 versus 1,573, a 6.5% edge. Floating-point math is a narrow EPYC win at 710,260 versus 707,600, just 0.4% apart. Data encryption also goes to the EPYC, 219,606 versus 215,680, a 1.8% difference. These five wins for the EPYC are spread across distinct categories, but the Threadripper’s twelve wins include the entire Cinebench suite and the most common general benchmarks. The overall average benchmark score confirms the Threadripper’s lead: 406,395 versus 396,673, a 2.5% difference that places the EPYC as the Threadripper’s closest rival, with the EPYC 9745 above both at 425,973 and the EPYC 9655 below at 373,484.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The base clock is 2.50 GHz for the Threadripper PRO 9995WX and 2.60 GHz for the EPYC 9655P, while the boost clock is 5.40 GHz for the Threadripper and 4.50 GHz for the EPYC. TDP is 350 W for the Threadripper and 400 W for the EPYC. The socket is AMD Socket sTR5 for the Threadripper and AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC. The codenames are Shimada Peak for the Threadripper and Turin for the EPYC. L1 cache per core is 64 KB for the Threadripper and 80 KB for the EPYC, though L2 (1 MB per core) and L3 (384 MB shared) are identical. Memory bus width is eight-channel for the Threadripper and twelve-channel for the EPYC, with corresponding bandwidths of 409.6 GB/s and 576.0 GB/s. The multiplier is unlocked on the Threadripper and locked on the EPYC. The Threadripper launched on 2025-07-22 with a launch MSRP of $11700, while the EPYC launched on 2024-10-09 with a launch MSRP of $10811. Both share the same 4 nm process node from TSMC, 99,780 million transistors, 12x 70.6 mm² die size, DDR5 memory support, ECC memory, and Gen 5 PCIe with 128 CPU-only lanes. The part numbers are 100-000001361 for the Threadripper and 100-000001522 for the EPYC.